July 1982 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1982 > July 1982 Decisions >
A.C. No. 792 July 30, 1982 - NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v. JESUS M. PONCE
201 Phil. 37:
201 Phil. 37:
SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 792. July 30, 1982.]
NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, Complainant, v. JESUS M. PONCE, Respondent.
The Solicitor General for complainant.
Jesus M. Ponce for Respondent.
SYNOPSIS
Angela Sauler accused the respondent of deceit and malpractice characterized as gross misconduct in office relative to transactions pertaining to four Transfer Certificate of Titles. The National Bureau of Investigation report, basis of this administrative case against the respondent, was submitted to the Solicitor General who, in turn required the aggrieved party to specify the grounds for her complaint pursuant to Sec. 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court. Instead of complying therewith, she filed a criminal case for estafa against the same respondent before the Court of First Instance of Manila. Another request for her to submit a verified letter complaint was made with the warning that unless she does so a dismissal of the administrative case will be recommended. In reply, she requested for a provisional dismissal of the disbarment proceedings until such time as the decision of the lower court has been promulgated in the criminal case she had filed as she was going abroad and would not be able to attend the hearings of the disbarment case. In view thereof, the Solicitor General recommended the provisional dismissal of the administrative case without prejudice to its refiling upon the termination of the criminal case before the lower court, if the alleged aggrieved party so desires.
The Supreme Court, in view of the attitude taken by the aggrieved party, adopted the recommendation and dismissed the case provisionally.
The Supreme Court, in view of the attitude taken by the aggrieved party, adopted the recommendation and dismissed the case provisionally.
SYLLABUS
1. LEGAL ETHICS; ATTORNEYS; MISCONDUCT IN OFFICE; DISBARMENT; GROUNDS FOR THE COMPLAINT MUST BE SPECIFIED. — Pursuant to Sec. 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, an aggrieved party must specify the grounds of her complaint. Under Section 1, of Rule 139, the complaint had to set out "distinctly, clearly, and concisely the facts complained of, supported by affidavits, if any, of persons having personal knowledge of the facts therein alleged and shall be accompanied with copies of such documents as may substantiate said facts."cralaw virtua1aw library
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; PROVISIONAL DISMISSAL THEREOF; CASE AT BAR. — Where the aggrieved party failed to comply with the requirement to substantiate the facts constituting the fraud, deceit and malpractice allegedly committed by the respondent and requested for the provisional dismissal of the disbarment case until such time as the lower court could decide on the criminal case for estafa she filed against the same respondent, the administrative case for disbarment is provisionally dismissed without prejudice to its being refiled upon the termination of said criminal case if the alleged aggrieved party so desires.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; PROVISIONAL DISMISSAL THEREOF; CASE AT BAR. — Where the aggrieved party failed to comply with the requirement to substantiate the facts constituting the fraud, deceit and malpractice allegedly committed by the respondent and requested for the provisional dismissal of the disbarment case until such time as the lower court could decide on the criminal case for estafa she filed against the same respondent, the administrative case for disbarment is provisionally dismissed without prejudice to its being refiled upon the termination of said criminal case if the alleged aggrieved party so desires.
D E C I S I O N
FERNANDO, C.J.:
It was the National Bureau of Investigation that referred to this Court the result of its investigation finding that respondent Jesus M. Ponce, a member of the Philippine Bar, was guilty of various acts of fraud against a certain Angela Sauler. Such report was then submitted to the Solicitor General for appropriate action. The alleged aggrieved party, Angela Sauler, was asked by the Office of the Solicitor General to specify the grounds for her complaint pursuant to Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court. All that was done by her was to accuse respondent Ponce of deceit and malpractice characterized as gross misconduct in office relative to Transfer Certificates of Title No. 78417, 35306, 91327, and 81585. She was then informed by the Office of the Solicitor General that under Section 1 of Rule 139, the complaint had to set out "distinctly, clearly, and concisely the facts complained of, supported by affidavits, if any, of persons having personal knowledge of the facts therein alleged and shall be accompanied with copies of such documents as may substantiate said facts." 1 No answer was ever received. In the meanwhile, however, Angela Sauler filed a criminal case for estafa against Jesus M. Ponce before the Court of First Instance of Manila. She was thereafter again required to submit a complaint in a letter, the last paragraph of which reads: "If you are still interested in pursuing your complaint, please comply with our request within ten (10) days from receipt hereof. Should you fail to do so, we will take it that you are no longer interested and we will recommend to the Supreme Court the dismissal of the case." 2 Her reply is worded thus: "In connection with your letter of November 17, 1975, requiring the submission of your office of a verified written complaint against respondent Jesus M. Ponce, a member of the bar, please be informed that the undersigned is requesting a provisional dismissal of the disbarment proceedings until such time as the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila has been promulgated in the criminal case filed by the undersigned against the respondent for estafa through falsification of public document on four (4) counts. The undersigned complainant is about to depart for abroad in due time and, therefore, she can not attend to the hearing of the above-entitled administrative case. Hence, this request." 3 In the report and recommendation subsequently submitted to this Court by Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza, 4 he recommended that under the circumstances, there being lack of interest in prosecuting this case on the part of the alleged aggrieved party, "the same be provisionally dismissed without prejudice to its refiling upon termination of the criminal case before the Court of First Instance of Manila, if complainant so desires." 5 In view of the attitude taken by Angela Sauler, there can be no question as to such recommendation being impressed with merit.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
WHEREFORE, the case for disbarment is dismissed provisionally without prejudice to its being refiled upon the termination of the criminal case before the Court of First Instance of Manila if the alleged aggrieved party so desires.
Barredo, Aquino, Concepcion Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro and Escolin, JJ., concur.
WHEREFORE, the case for disbarment is dismissed provisionally without prejudice to its being refiled upon the termination of the criminal case before the Court of First Instance of Manila if the alleged aggrieved party so desires.
Barredo, Aquino, Concepcion Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro and Escolin, JJ., concur.
Endnotes:
1. Report and Recommendation, 3.
2. Ibid, 4.
3. Ibid, 4-5.
4. He was assisted by the then Assistant Solicitor General Reynato S. Puno and Solicitor Romeo C. de la Cruz.
5. Ibid, 5.
